View Full Version : Every other team should watch out
helsy3
1st November 2007, 08:10
Demetriou has just stated on SEN that the Gold Coast market and the West Sydney market will be heavily invested in over the next few years, and that there is no point in the AFL investing such money if there is no team presence there.
So if the Kangaroos are in the firing line now, who will be next?
ShanBoi
1st November 2007, 08:19
Gold coast - roos
West Sydney - bulldogs
Thought that was pretty obvious all year?
helsy3
1st November 2007, 08:23
I wasn't asking who lol, it was a rhetorical question over the power that the AFL yields over all our Clubs....
Who knows that they wouldn't say right, Hawks have made a success of their Tassie venture, lets send them to Sydney? Or Melbourne, or any of the current sides.
A Living God
1st November 2007, 08:24
Demetriou has just stated on SEN that the Gold Coast market and the West Sydney market will be heavily invested in over the next few years, and that there is no point in the AFL investing such money if there is no team presence there.
So if the Kangaroos are in the firing line now, who will be next?
No only struggling Melbourne clubs should watch out, secure vic and all of non - vic club are all safe.
That means North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and Melbourne but everybody including the clubs already knows this.
AngelEyes
1st November 2007, 08:31
Or instead of inserting one team and having a bye they will insert two teams.
The best way for the AFL IMO is to have 22 teams, 21 round season and its all good. No one can complain etc.
I'd put six new teams:
1 West Sydney
2 Gold Goast
3 Tasmania
4 Darwin
5 Canberra
6 Another Perth team
FugaziRoo
1st November 2007, 08:36
Or instead of inserting one team and having a bye they will insert two teams.
The best way for the AFL IMO is to have 22 teams, 21 round season and its all good. No one can complain etc.
I'd put six new teams:
1 West Sydney
2 Gold Goast
3 Tasmania
4 Darwin
5 Canberra
6 Another Perth team
That would not work. A team has to generate around 8 million dollars a year to survive. Tasmania, Darwin, Canberra (and maybe west sydney)would never be able to do that. It may work for 2 or 3 years but after that it would go pear shaped. This is why Jeff Kennett said that the hawks will never perminately move to Tassie.
SCRAY72
1st November 2007, 08:37
Gold coast - roos
West Sydney - bulldogs
Thought that was pretty obvious all year?
You forgot Tassie. Pretty obvious.
the crane
1st November 2007, 09:12
im way more worried about losing draft picks and getting fined than worrying about my club being relocated!;)
RUNVS
1st November 2007, 09:14
im way more worried about losing draft picks and getting fined than worrying about my club being relocated!;)
Im more worried about being killed by a Tasmanian Tiger than my club being relocated :D
Gunnar Longshanks
1st November 2007, 09:30
Demetriou has just stated on SEN that the Gold Coast market and the West Sydney market will be heavily invested in over the next few years, and that there is no point in the AFL investing such money if there is no team presence there.
So if the Kangaroos are in the firing line now, who will be next?I reckon it's way too early to send a team into Western Sydney.
That's Rugby League heartland and it would be unfair on the side sent in there to do missionary work.
Imagine if the Bulldogs got ripped away from their fans in Melbourne, relocated to Western Sydney, only to be ignored and heckled by the local population.
Very unfair.
If the AFL is desperate to set up expansion teams, they should offer great packages for sides willing to relocate, or start the new sides from scratch.
Shoehorning a Victorian side into relocating will end in tears.
ShanBoi
1st November 2007, 09:35
You forgot Tassie. Pretty obvious.
Thats because he didnt ask about Tassie in his OP, vlad spoke about sydney and the gold coast on SEN... Those are the two teams that are spoken about.
And the AFL aren't FORCING anyone to do anything. North are having this big BOO HOO about being forced to relocate. The truth of the matter is, they can say no and they don't have to go. It's pretty simple. The consequence is the AFL pulls their funding. If they were financially stable, it wouldnt really matter and they could shove it to the AFL and call their bluff.
What north are really saying is, we don't want to go... but we still want you to give us money to survive. Yes it seems harsh for the AFL to just give you this ultimatum, but you aren't being FORCED to do anything. The AFL are effectively offering you a lifeline. Albeit, one that isn't necessarily all that great for their melbourne based fans, but which would you prefer - relocation or extinction? Listening to KB's figures this morning, it sounds pretty grim. Increase your revenue by $7 Million a year, relocate, or cease to exist.
Papa G
1st November 2007, 09:47
No only struggling Melbourne clubs should watch out, secure vic and all of non - vic club are all safe.
That means North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and Melbourne but everybody including the clubs already knows this.
North are gone - no 2 ways about it. Move or die.
To sure up their own positions, the Bulldogs and the Demons should be holding backroom talks right now. A move into West Sydney is coming, it may be 10 years away but it is definately coming. These 2 clubs are the ones on the chopping block. Most say it is the Bulldogs but I disagree, Melbourne from a strategic point of view would be a better choice. Either way, neither would be feeling all that comfortable. If they were smart, to secure both their futures in Victoria, they should merge. May not be popular, but would quash the relocation arguement once and for all.
hawker11
1st November 2007, 10:19
This is why Jeff Kennett said that the hawks will never perminately move to Tassie.
And the fact that 30,000 members at Hawthorn would never allow it to proceed. Among a whole other host of reasons...
jimmy_clement#8
1st November 2007, 10:32
If they are willing to issue a 17th license, in fact Demetriou would have "no hesitation in issuing a 17th license", then surely given the logistics of what the AFL still is, a football COMPETITION first and foremost, then the logistics lend themselves much more favourably to a 17th AND 18th license, than a 17th license. In preference, starting with most preferred, it would lend itself to go :16 teams, 18 teams, 17 teams. If North chose to stay here, and we get a 17th team out of the Gold Coast, watch the AFL look to fasttrack an 18th team in Western Sydney. If the Kangaroos move, then other clubs may be in danger once the Gold Coast starts to improve. But that would have the longer time frame. It took ages to get to 17 (providing that happens), but it'll be super quick going from 17 to 18. Despite the AFL's constant reminder that the AFL should be, and hopefully always will be 16 teams, no more, no less.